Then I'll be certain to NOT watch it (cowspiracy).
The only thing that would have a chance to make me go vegetarian (vegan is just nuts to me) would be being convinced that ALL food animals are mistreated. Since I know they aren't, watching videos of animal abuse is less than worthless, it's insulting and a simple attempt to 'pull at my heart strings', which always backfires when tried with me. I know full well that factory farms are disgusting...which is why I try to buy locally grown, 'free range' meats from smaller farms.
As to all the issues associated with 'meat production', they are really a product of too many people. If there were far fewer people to feed, factory farms would never exist, and neither would all those issues listed. I did my part by getting fixed and not having children, so I'll eat whatever I please and still be far ahead of the vegan with 3 kids as far as my ecological impact goes...far-far ahead.
;-)

That's the most ridiculous, jingoistic thing I've read in quite a while. Americans are 99% angry cowards who panic at the drop of a hat and flee from car backfires and fireworks.

Society is collectivist. Pure individualism is Thunderdome.

Exceedingly few individualists have ever stood up and fought for it, even fewer are willing to die for it. If you assume Americans will stand up and fight for their rights and freedom, I'll assume you haven't ever paid attention to many Americans.

The word "refugee" DOES exist in the US, because it's descriptive OF the US. A large part of our population are refugees, arguably including many of the founders.

That rifle behind every blade of grass didn't help much in 1812, nor did it scare the Moonies (the only group to ever commit a biological attack on America). Don't be fooled that we intimidate anyone with our armed populace. We are more dangerous to ourselves than to others.

@enoch @Asmo

I don't fully agree that the new system is as fear-free as the video suggests. One could easily argue that there is a valid fear of losing privileges.

I'm honestly wondering if it will create a two party system of haves vs have-nots at different levels where association with lower numbered people becomes something to avoid but all the plebeians will associate with each other.

Think of it like this:

I wonder further if the people at the bottom of the heap would end up saying "fuck this" because they're being stuck with a bad lot in life and now have companions (the only people who will associate with them) who feel similar. It's not THAT dire in as much as I think it has a very real potential to backfire.

Don't get me wrong, I still think that this kind of system is far BEYOND amoral. Lets discuss some realistic things that we can do here in the states to help our fellow Earthicans.

Yeah, I really think the police 'boycott' is going to backfire on them. It certainly makes me want to go see it more.

I'm definitely not seeing any actual legitimate censorship issue and no legitimate point or argument--and certainly no censorship "rule." There is no rule or law against showing nipples on the internet. The decision to blur the photograph was made entirely by this V Magazine at their own discretion for their own reasons.

Compared to many western countries, the United States is relatively light on censorship precisely because of the codification of the first amendment. There are very few circumstances in which the federal government uses criminal law to enforce censorship, and using civil law to do likewise (such as in cases of libel) is relatively hard. Naturally, the truth on the ground is always more complex, because of all of the ways you can sneak sort-of-censorship into local and state laws such school boards determining public school curriculums, shady contracts, and discriminatory public decency laws. That last, which is really more what this guy is arguing about in a ham-fisted way.

I certainly don't believe there should be different laws for men and for women. If a bare-chested man in public is acceptable, I believe a bare-chested woman should be just as acceptable. In this case, I'd go so far as to say I believe that should be federal law, but that can likewise backfire in ways I don't agree with (eg, I believe wether to allow concealed handguns should be a local decision), so I'm not quick to make blanket statements.

Certainly the US is socially and psychologically backward in many, many ways, but it's also better in that respect now on balance than it has ever been in the past.

@MichaelL
Actually, fat people seem to be one of the few groups these days that can still be made fun of. Shame can be useful but shaming someone who's overeating because of depression or has a poor self image will not help them, it will only make them worse.

@lucky760
Your kids have never had any juice or candy or ice cream before? I can respect your desire for healthy kids, but, wow! I hope it doesn't backfire and they wind up like Rigel from Farscape when they encounter candy for the first time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mQzmK670yI

What a terrible, trerrible load of shit!
By your logic, the middle ages must've been free of any crime. You know, the time where we did chop off hands of thieves, where we executed people real quick for all kinds of offenses.
You can argue for executions all you want but the terrible truth is that it never worked as a deterrent. When every country in the world had the death penality, people still got murdered and raped. And guess what, today you are less likely to get murdered or raped than in the good old days.
That shit never worked and it doesn't work today.
The only thing you'll achieve by making prison a worse place is making sure you'll release more broken, antisocial individuals into society. I guess that'll make everything better. I don't see how it can backfire to throw people into a terrible place where they'll be traumatized and abused, hammering home the message they're not a part of our civilized society, and then releasing them back into our communities. I mean, surely, they'll be model citizens then.

Why don't you just say it, man? You'd like to have Judge Dredd patroling the streets. If we'd just shoot everybody who might commit a crime, nobody will ever commit one. Right?

Most people commit crimes because they think they can get away with it, not because they think they can do the time. A lot of people commit crimes without thinking about the consequences or simply not caring about them.

4mph difference in initial speed is still going to be more than 4mph at impact. Also kinetic energy is speed^2.

So yah. The accident is obviously not the fault of the guy speeding. His speed didn't make the accident inevitable, he just made it worse. Would an ad campaign urging drivers to be more cautious have any effect? No. People don't stop making lapses in judgement/mistakes because you ask them politely. Dangerous drivers perhaps believe that their driving is good enough and, again, are unlikely to drive more safely. You can attempt to address the causes of these errors - tiredness, inebriation etc.

I think perhaps the heavy handed tactic to combat speeding backfires somewhat. People, from their own experiences, know that when they go a bit faster they don't immediately have a crash, and they also probably don't believe that 5mph is going to be the difference between little Timmy buying it in most cases - and I think their probably right. So this message that a bit of extra speed equates to disaster is rejected; it comes across as inaccurate and emotionally manipulative. Instead I might try to communicate why maintaining and policing a speed limit is important - that the sheer volume of people that go that 5mph faster makes a statistically significant impact on the number of injuries and fatalities in accidents.

If she wasn't a soldier, a member of a large institution that would have probably looked into it themselves, I doubt it would have backfired on the cop as much as it did. In my opinion of course. I just don't see a common college student getting that fast of a turnaround on this guy getting canned, etc...where there would be a lot more "doubt" (read doubt as: chance to cover up because the college probably isn't going to look too hard) as to what happened. Even with a video.

So, you support giving cops the authority to summarily execute people for theft? Do you not see how that might backfire at some point?

It looks like my kind-of-cheeky title is backfiring a little.
No, he doesn't sound at all like Mercury, that's why I added "all kidding aside". I'm sorry, there is no /sarcasm checkbox in a video submission :-/

Hey @enoch,

> dude,
> i totally appreciate the time you took to respond.

Sure, not a problem. It's a complex issue, and requires the time to consider and understand the details.

> "for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-
> adam smith we have neither.
> IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
> at least not in totality."

Uh-oh, I hope this isn't a "lesser of two evils" argument.. That is, "since we cannot have a free market lets go for full-blown socialism because it is supposedly better than fascism." It's a false choice and not one I think any true humanitarian would be willing to entertain.

> "should EVERYTHING be subject to a free market? police?
> firefighters? roads?"

In short, yes. Aversion to socialism is based on reality, in contrast to what you're saying. Socialism is failure. Central planning inevitably fails. Central planners do not have the required knowledge to plan an economy. You need economic calculation and economic calculation is impossible to achieve in a socialist "economy."

> "to me health should be a basic part of civilized society,by your
> arguments you disagree. ok..we both have that right."

Are you trying to conflate "socialized healthcare" with health? Let's not confuse the facts with personal attacks. You seem to be saying, "if you are against socialism you are against health." That makes no sense. None.
I might as well say, "If you are against free markets you are against health."

> "my argument is that some things should be a basic for civilized
> society. in my opinion health care is one of them."

In no way did I ever say that I am against healthcare. So what are you talking about?

> "for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-
> adam smith we have neither."

You cannot have a free market without liberty any more than you can have liberty without liberty. This is obvious, so?

> "IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
> at least not in totality."

So, if we had a free market, you wouldn't be "against" a free market? Hmm.

> "the reason why i dont feel a free market is the way to go is
> mainly due to the fact that politics and corporations have merged
> into one giant behemoth (plutocracy)."

That's fine, but this is not a matter of "feeling" but a matter of economic reality and empirical evidence and deductive truth.

> "i never really understood americans aversion to "socialism""

Perhaps some economic education will clarify things. Understanding economic calculation, for example, might be a good place to start.

> "i deal with the very people that could NEVER afford you."

You're wrong. For one thing, while I do work at a significant fee for my primary clients, I do a significant amount of pro bono work, as a choice, and because I, like you, believe that health care is a human right. And that's a key point you need to understand. You seem to believe that, if the state doesn't take care of people, then no one will, and so we need to steal money from people in the form of taxes, under the auspices of "helping the poor," when in fact, the bureaucrats ensure that only a portion (if any) of those taxes actually arrive with their intended recipients while those who would willingly help those people themselves are deprived of the resources to do so, by depleting their income with said taxes. It's an unnecessary middleman, and faulty logic. The fact that people have, do, and will continue to care about people is the fundamental fact the needs to be understood. As a "man of faith," I would hope that you have enough faith in other people that they would care about and for others (even without being coerced by the government to do so, by force).

Furthermore, we have to apply the free market in toto, not half-assed. You can't have a Keynesian corporatists and an over-regulated system and expect that people will be be able to afford healthcare. The fact is that in a free market, the number of people who cannot afford my services would actually decrease considerably, because many more options would arise for those who still couldn't afford me would but need my services.

> "in a free market there will be losers.the one who always lose.
> the poor,the homeless,the mentally ill."

The free market has ways of dealing with all of these. And yes some win, some lose. But in a socialist system, everyone loses (except for maybe the rulers and their lackeys). This seems, again, to be coming from a place of fear, a sense of helplessness without the government. But alas, nothing contributes to poverty, homelessness, and mental illness more than government does. Fact.

> "the free market is still profit driven and the poor will have it no
> better,possibly worse in such a system."

So, what is your proof that the poor will have it worse? How do you know? Or is this what you "feel" would be the case?

> "the reason why i suggested medicare is because it is already in
> place."

So was slavery when the South decided they wanted to keep it.

> "two things would happen if this country went the medicare route:
> 1.health insurance industry would obsolete.
> 2.the pharmaceutical industry would find itself having to negotiate
> drug prices"

1. Yes, the government would have a monopoly on health coverage, and by extension all of healthcare. Economic calculation at this point becomes utterly impossible. Chaos follows. And healthcare quality and service plummets. I have research studies to support this if you're interested.

2. Why not nationalize pharmaceuticals while you are at it?

> "i may be a man of faith but i am a humanist at heart.for-profit
> health care will still have similar results as our current because
> the poor and working poor population is growing."

Without appealing to moral superiority, allow me to assure you that there is nothing -- not one thing -- that is moral or ethical about allowing the government coerce, aggress, commit violence, and violate individual's inalienable rights to self-ownership and property rights, as you proposing with such socialist "solutions." In my humble opinion, a true man of faith would not stand for such things, but would stand against them.

> "the poor and working poor population is growing."

Indeed we do, and we all have inflation, cronyism, Lord Keynes' bogus economic "system" and government's meddling to thank for this.

> "i am all for an actual free market but some things should be done
> collectively."

By "collectively," I assume you mean "by central authorities," yes? Because the free market is, in fact, collective. But there is nothing "collective" about central planning. Except for the fact that the "collective" is mandated to obey the dictates of the central planners.

> "its not only the right thing to so but the human thing to do."

1. Whatever your "feelings" are about it, there is an economic reality to deal with. Such a sentiment misses the point, and will result in hurting more people than it helps.

2. There is nothing "human" (or humane) in aggression, coercion, and violations of sovereignty, all of which underpins an implementation of a socialized system.

"The right thing to do" is to respect self-ownership and property rights. Doing anything else will eventually backfire. "People are not chessmen you move on a board at your whim."

Any one who is serious about contributing to solving and/or ameliorating the issues of poverty, homelessness, and/or mental illness and many of the other symptoms of our social detritus, needs to develop real, sustainable free market solutions to these. Otherwise, their efforts will be in vain (even if -- or perhaps especially if -- they are adopted by government for implementation). Anything else will not improve any of these but will only serve to make matters worse.

Going back to the basics, free market competition will always provide better goods/services at lower prices than the monopolies (fostered and engendered by the lack of economic calculations due to governmental intervention and regulations). Healthcare is no exception to this. Why would it be? Furthermore, why believe that the central planners/kleptocrats aren't profit-driven? Why believe that a "government" monopoly doesn't suffer from a lack of economic calculation? And what's wrong with being profit-driven, however you may individually define "profit?" Do you/I/we not act for what you/I/we consider the best? (Having faith is not a part-time job.)

Do you not act to achieve desired goals?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you haven't fully thought things through. But as I'm sure you know, "It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost."

> "thats my 2 cents anyways.i could probably ramble on for a few
> hours but i dont want to bore you. always a pleasure my friend.
> namaste"

It's not boring, but does take a bit of time to consider and understand all of the details. It's complex, and certainly a challenge to navigate your way through the morass of rhetoric, conditioning, and cultural misdirection that is pervasive in our society, especially when considering what passes for "news" and "facts." This is particularly true with regards to the economy, which is heavily politicized, despite being a rational science that can be understood if one takes the time to learn about its mechanism.

Since you signed off with "namaste," perhaps it would be worth reminding you that the first principle of yoga is "ahimsa para dharma" : non-violence is the highest duty.

Perhaps videosift isn't the best medium in which to educate people on non-violence and economics, but alas, it can be entertaining and, possibly have have some positive effect at some point.

Hope this helps.

Bwahaha, I didn't even catch the irony of his name until you pointed it out. Good one, mate.

Would it be far-fetched for me to also suspect them of trying to draw focus onto Greenwald's sexuality?

It smells an awful lot like a poor-man's smear campaign that backfired, big time. The editors at the Guardian really did a great job an picking pictures for their related articles, always rubbing it into bigots' faces with those two happy blokes front and center.

PS: Nick Cohen had the laugh of the day when he wondered what terrorist organisation Miranda might be associated with: "the provisional wing of the Unabomber Appreciation Society".

Just pointing out that I think it's dishonest to be a statist and deride others for being statists, statist.

Thanks for telling me that you fill out a W9, live in LA, and that you're an author; and letting me know that that information is none of my business. How contradictory of you. Statist liberloon.

Although it's fun pointing out you calling the kettle black, it's not necessarily personal grudge. I believe that libertarianism and white-washing of regulations is a bad thing. Look at Pakistan. It's no Somalia in terms of a libertarian paradise, but it's not far off:
http://tribune.com.pk/story/538217/poor-regulation/

^Pakistan is a country riddled with a lack of regulation, yet the poor keep getting poorer there, and the rich keep getting richer.

People who are destitute enough, do have alternatives that are not afforded to them here in the States though, they can sell their organs:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/feb/10/pakistan.declanwalsh

OH TO BE FREE! to sell your organs...

If you do end up getting sick, you can always turn to the largely unregulated drug industry: http://www.aljazeera.com/video/asia/2012/01/201212775512528261.html

FREEDOM! to produce dangerous drugs on a mass scale... Hey! That's kindof like those kids who died from the polio vaccination that was privately funded and not regulated: http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/When-polio-vaccine-backfired-Tainted-batches-2677525.php

It's kind of like...ohhh I wasn't gonna post this again, but what the heck:

@Yogi

Yeah, that was my general take on things too.

The fact that they cut out her face may be because they were trying to be clever (the title of the ad is "Guess who?" or something like that), insinuating that it could be any woman. It could also be related to the fact that they just signed pro surfer Stephanie Gilmore and again were trying to be clever in making the announcement (there's speculation that the woman in the vid is in fact Ms. Gilmore).

But clearly all that "cleverness" is backfiring on them.